A notice to quit forthwith or from henceforth or to quit generally without referring to some distinct time would be invalid

A notice to quit forthwith or from henceforth or to quit generally without referring to some distinct time would be invalid and I have been shown no authority to hold that such a notice as is given in the present case could be called a reasonable notice even in the case of agricultural tenancy Agreeing, therefore, with the lower appellate Court I hold that the notice (Ex. A. D-2) was not a valid notice and that the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed on that account.

Equivalent Citation: AIR1929Nag169

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR

Decided On: 27.03.1929

Appellants: Zingu and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Ramji Mahadu

Tenancy - Possession - Suit filed for possession decreed - Appeal filed to set aside decree - Suit dismissed - Hence, present appeal - Held, it was considered that a notice to quit forthwith or from henceforth or to quit generally without referring to some distinct time would be invalid and it was shown no authority to hold that such a notice as was given in present case could be called a reasonable notice even in case of agricultural tenancy - Suit was rightly dismissed - Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Subhedar, A.J.C.

1. The plaintiffs who are malguzars of patti No. 2 of mouza Usgaon in the Sakoli Tahsil of the Bhandara District sued defendant 1 for possession of sir field No. 76 comprised in the said patti. Various defences were raised in the trial Court but they failed and the plaintiffs' claim was decreed on the ground that defendant 1 being merely a subtenant was liable to be ejected. Defendant 1 appealed to the Court of the District Judge, Bhandara, who recorded further pleadings and admitted fresh documentary evidence and ultimately allowed the appeal dismissing the plaintiffs' suit holding that the notice to quit dated 3rd February 1926 (Ex. A. D-2) which was given by the plaintiffs to defendant 1 was not a valid and legal notice, because it required the defendant to quit the field at once on receipt of the notice.

2. The plaintiffs have now come up in second appeal and the only point pressed for them is that the notice (Ex. A. D-2) was a perfectly valid notice and the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding it otherwise. It was argued that the learned District Judge erred in applying the provisions of Section 106, T.P. Act, to S6e case because by Section 117 agricultural leases were exempted from the operation of Chap. 5 ibid.

3. It was however, conceded that reasonable notice was necessary to be given in the present case as the subtenancy was from year to year. Reliance was placed upon the following cases to show that the notice to quit so far as the agricultural leases were concerned need not be 6 months notice terminating with the end of the year of the tenancy, and that it is enough if it requires the tenant to give up possession at a time when there are no crops standing, in the field: Jagut Chunder Roy v. Rup Chund Chungo [1883] 9 Cal. 48, Radha Gobind v. Rakhal Das [1886] 12 Cal. 82., and Ambabai v. Rajaram [1896] 20 Bom. 759.

4. In the first Calcutta case a three months notice to quit was given though it did not expire with the end of the year of the tenancy and it was found that there were no crops on the land at the date of the expiry of the time stated in the notice. In the second case from the same High Court the notice required the tenant to quit after one month and under the circumstances of those cases the period of one and three months were considered reasonable. The Bombay case referred to laid down that in cases before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation a tenant other than a monthly tenant, holding over on the terms of his lease was entitled to reasonable, that is to say, in the case of lands and in the absence of usage or stipulation to the contrary to six months' notice to quit. None of these cases is, therefore, any authority for holding that a notice demanding an agricultural tenant from year to year to quit the land immediately or forthwith on receipt of the notice is a proper and reasonable notice within the meaning of the expression used in the case of Sheomangal v. Nanhelal [1918] 14 N.L.R. 3. In another case Batten, A.J.C., held that five months notice before the end of the agricultural year was a sufficient one in terminating a subtenancy of an absolute occupancy holding: Govinda v. Chindhu Second Appeal No. 201 of 1917).

5. In para 2906 of Dr. Gour's Law of Transfer, Vol. 3, 5th Edn., it is stated, following an English case, that a notice to quit forthwith or from henceforth or to quit generally without referring to some distinct time would be invalid and I have been shown no authority to hold that such a notice as is given in the present case could be called a reasonable notice even in the case of agricultural tenancy Agreeing, therefore, with the lower appellate Court I hold that the notice (Ex. A. D-2) was not a valid notice and that the plaintiff's suit was rightly dismissed on that account.

6. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Costs in the lower Courts will be paid as already ordered by the decree appealed against.

Print Page